Is heterosexual hook up culture fuelling rapes on campuses?

[Alvecia]

I remain unconvinced that what many call the "mainstream" isn't just a loud minority.

A lod minority with influence and power.

*shrug* Some influence perhaps. But these in the current era of rapid information, loud = influence.
Seems to me the solution is to shout louder than them.

[Frenline Delpha]

A lod minority with influence and power.

*shrug* Some influence perhaps. But these in the current era of rapid information, loud = influence.
Seems to me the solution is to shout louder than them.

Which is when their power comes into play. Silencing any disagreement through the media. While the anti-SJW movement may be gaining steam, it will still be an uphill battle before we defeat this vocal "minority."

[Alvecia]

*shrug* Some influence perhaps. But these in the current era of rapid information, loud = influence.
Seems to me the solution is to shout louder than them.

Which is when their power comes into play. Silencing any disagreement through the media. While the anti-SJW movement may be gaining steam, it will still be an uphill battle before we defeat this vocal "minority."

Nothing worth doing is ever easy.

[Hirota]

*shrug* Some influence perhaps. But these in the current era of rapid information, loud = influence.
Seems to me the solution is to shout louder than them.

Sure, you could, but there is a risk of becoming no better than that which you fight against. It's why I'm personally leary of (over) using potential snarl words like "SJW" - This vocal group of feminists love to use snarl words like "rape apologist" or "misogyny" or "patriarchy" whenever they have the flimsiest (imaginary) justification for doing so.

No, instead of shouting as loud as them, and risking looking (and being) as stupid as them, you have to ensure that you are smarter than them. Provide evidence for why they are wrong and you are right. That might not always be easy, but that's precisely why this vocal group of feminists have to rely on snarl words - slacktivists can't do evidence.

[Costa Fierro]

I remain unconvinced that what many call the "mainstream" isn't just a loud minority.

Considering 20 years ago, the ideas that are in the feminist mainstream today would have been seen as radical, and where so-called "liberal" feminists are basically being harassed and threatened for their beliefs, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream is now radical.

[Alvecia]

*shrug* Some influence perhaps. But these in the current era of rapid information, loud = influence.
Seems to me the solution is to shout louder than them.

Sure, you could, but there is a risk of becoming no better than that which you fight against. It's why I'm personally leary of (over) using potential snarl words like "SJW" - This vocal group of feminists love to use snarl words like "rape apologist" or "misogyny" or "patriarchy" whenever they have the flimsiest (imaginary) justification for doing so.

No, instead of shouting as loud as them, and risking looking (and being) as stupid as them, you have to ensure that you are smarter than them. Provide evidence for why they are wrong and you are right. That might not always be easy, but that's precisely why this vocal group of feminists have to rely on snarl words - slacktivists can't do evidence.

Perhaps "shouting louder" isn't the best turn of phrase.
Countering their rhetoric and making it firm what actual feminism is and should be and decrying the extremists for what they are? Certainly.

[Alvecia]

I remain unconvinced that what many call the "mainstream" isn't just a loud minority.

Considering 20 years ago, the ideas that are in the feminist mainstream today would have been seen as radical, and where so-called "liberal" feminists are basically being harassed and threatened for their beliefs, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream is now radical.

Again, I remain unconvinced.
While historical precedence is important, here I don't think it's a good measure.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, no, because you didn't state a reason in that quoted post.

You came in, said "this shouldn't be a discussion" and that was it.

No, that wasn't it. Did you not read the rest of my post where I gave a reason?

I'm talking about this specific post, which will be found through the quote-chain of this post.

The sad thing is that NSG is more intelligent than some other online or RL communities. And we still have so many stupid threads.

NSG may be above average when compared to something like the Youtube comments section, but still...many of the discussions on this forum are completely nonsensical. Even though I've seen it many times, it still shocks me.

For example, there is no reason for this thread to exist. It should be common sense that people hooking up and dating has nothing to do with rape.

Where you did not provide an argument or reason - you just said words.
In addition, I mentally discard any statement that relies on "common sense". Common sense is notoriously reliant on discarding, being ignorant of, or flat-out rejecting reality.

[Chessmistress]

I remain unconvinced that what many call the "mainstream" isn't just a loud minority.

Considering 20 years ago, the ideas that are in the feminist mainstream today would have been seen as radical, and where so-called "liberal" feminists are basically being harassed and threatened for their beliefs, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream is now radical.

That's due women empowerment, and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs, while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs: an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment". They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

[Alvecia]

Considering 20 years ago, the ideas that are in the feminist mainstream today would have been seen as radical, and where so-called "liberal" feminists are basically being harassed and threatened for their beliefs, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream is now radical.

That's due women empowerment, and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs, while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs: an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment". They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

Conversely, I think Radical "Feminists" go way beyond women's needs.

[Chessmistress]

That's due women empowerment, and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs, while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs: an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment". They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

Conversely, I think Radical "Feminists" go way beyond women's needs.

Mansplaining is not just only unfair and irrelevant, but also disproved by facts - more Radical Feminists policies within the society, better the society for women - Sweden and Iceland compared to USA, in example:
fully paid maternity leave, up to 480 days in Sweden, vs the situation there's in USA
free abortions in all public hospitals without the horrible situation there's in USA Just two little examples...
In Sweden and Iceland next step will be artificial insemination for free in all public hospitals.

[Frenline Delpha]

Conversely, I think Radical "Feminists" go way beyond women's needs.

Mansplaining is not just only unfair and irrelevant, but also disproved by facts - more Radical Feminists policies within the society, better the society for women - Sweden and Iceland compared to USA, in example:
fully paid maternity leave, up to 480 days in Sweden, vs the situation there's in USA
free abortions in all public hospitals without the horrible situation there's in USA Just two little examples...
In Sweden and Iceland next step will be artificial insemination for free in all public hospitals.

You just used mansplaining like it was an actual fucking thing. I can't even anymore.

[Galloism]

Mansplaining is not just only unfair and irrelevant, but also disproved by facts - more Radical Feminists policies within the society, better the society for women - Sweden and Iceland compared to USA, in example:
fully paid maternity leave, up to 480 days in Sweden, vs the situation there's in USA
free abortions in all public hospitals without the horrible situation there's in USA Just two little examples...
In Sweden and Iceland next step will be artificial insemination for free in all public hospitals.

You just used mansplaining like it was an actual fucking thing. I can't even anymore.

It's just a way for someone to discriminate against half of society on the basis of their gender, by attempting to tell society that they are of lower intelligence and therefore their opinions are worthless because of their gender.

wait... that sounds familiar somehow...

[Chessmistress]

Mansplaining is not just only unfair and irrelevant, but also disproved by facts - more Radical Feminists policies within the society, better the society for women - Sweden and Iceland compared to USA, in example:
fully paid maternity leave, up to 480 days in Sweden, vs the situation there's in USA
free abortions in all public hospitals without the horrible situation there's in USA Just two little examples...
In Sweden and Iceland next step will be artificial insemination for free in all public hospitals.

You just used mansplaining like it was an actual fucking thing. I can't even anymore.

Because it's an actual thing.
Even most "liberal feminists" agree that mansplaining is a thing.

[Philjia]

Conversely, I think Radical "Feminists" go way beyond women's needs.

Mansplaining is not just only unfair and irrelevant, but also disproved by facts - more Radical Feminists policies within the society, better the society for women - Sweden and Iceland compared to USA, in example:
fully paid maternity leave, up to 480 days in Sweden, vs the situation there's in USA
free abortions in all public hospitals without the horrible situation there's in USA Just two little examples...
In Sweden and Iceland next step will be artificial insemination for free in all public hospitals.

Those are liberal and/or socialist policies.

[Galloism]

Considering 20 years ago, the ideas that are in the feminist mainstream today would have been seen as radical, and where so-called "liberal" feminists are basically being harassed and threatened for their beliefs, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream is now radical.

That's due women empowerment, and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs, while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs: an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment". They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

[Frenline Delpha]

You just used mansplaining like it was an actual fucking thing. I can't even anymore.

Because it's an actual thing.
Even most "liberal feminists" agree that mansplaining is a thing.

I'd ask for a source, but I don't want to waste brain cells reading whatever shit you post as a "source."

[Chessmistress]

That's due women empowerment, and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs, while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs: an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.
It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment". They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

[Philjia]

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Law has to be gender neutral regardless, so would you prefer statutory rape laws or 16 year old girls with adult boyfriends?

[Frenline Delpha]

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

You heard it here first, folks: You can't rape men.

[Kelinfort]

I remain unconvinced that what many call the "mainstream" isn't just a loud minority.

Much like American's support for free trade and globalization, it just so happens minority is better organized and more motivated than the majority.

Americans prefer free trade and globalization by a nearly 2:1 margin, yet all the candidates are campaigning against TPP.

[Crysuko]

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Sigh. Radfems shout endlessly about a patriarchy and yet their evidence for it's existence is shoddy at best.

Riddle me this: if we live in a rape culture then why does having rape charges levied on someone essentially ruin their name forever?

[Galloism]

Yeah, those outmoded ideas like the law should treat men and women equally, that grown women who rape little boys should be punished, things like that.

No, really - radical feminists fought to protect grown women who raped little boys from any legal consequence. Seriously. No, that was seriously their position that five year old boys had more power than their 30 year old female teachers, and so their teachers couldn't rape them.

Fortunately, liberal feminists won the day on that one.

EDIT: I mean, I have a hard time understanding why ANYONE would openly support a movement which attempted to protect child rapists. Publicly. It blows my mind.

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.

Prior to the liberal feminist attempts to make statutory rape gender neutral, having sex with a 12 year old girl was illegal, but having sex with a 12 year old boy wasn't. Liberal feminists spotted a problem - the law was unequal and treated women as less capable than men. They fought to change this.

Radical feminists fought against them - to protect the right of grown women to fuck little boys that couldn't consent.

It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning. It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Actually, it was. It was 5 year old boys, 6 year old boys, 7 year old boys, etc, all the way up until 13-15 year old boys (at that point in time, the only state with a higher age of consent than 16 was, I believe, California, which was and is 18). Going back to the 1800s, the age of consent varied by state from 12-14 or so, but due to feminist efforts, that was raised mostly into the 14-16 range (which, it should have been. 12? Seriously? 12? Looking at you, Vatican City). Except in California, I think, "17 year old boys" would not be considered victims of statutory rape, because they statutorily had reached the age of consent, the same as 17 year old girls.

Later on, provisions were added to recognize positions of authority (IE, parent and child, teacher and student, etc) as being statutory rape even when above the age of consent, because that consent is impaired by the position of authority a teacher has over her student, for example.

Radical feminism fought to protect child rapists, and here you are excusing the ones that did.

Quelle surprise.

[Bloody Xmas]

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.

Prior to the liberal feminist attempts to make statutory rape gender neutral, having sex with a 12 year old girl was illegal, but having sex with a 12 year old boy wasn't. Liberal feminists spotted a problem - the law was unequal and treated women as less capable than men. They fought to change this.

Radical feminists fought against them - to protect the right of grown women to fuck little boys that couldn't consent.

It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning. It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Actually, it was. It was 5 year old boys, 6 year old boys, 7 year old boys, etc, all the way up until 13-15 year old boys (at that point in time, the only state with a higher age of consent than 16 was, I believe, California, which was and is 18). Going back to the 1800s, the age of consent varied by state from 12-14 or so, but due to feminist efforts, that was raised mostly into the 14-16 range (which, it should have been. 12? Seriously? 12? Looking at you, Vatican City). Except in California, I think, "17 year old boys" would not be considered victims of statutory rape, because they statutorily had reached the age of consent, the same as 17 year old girls.

Later on, provisions were added to recognize positions of authority (IE, parent and child, teacher and student, etc) as being statutory rape even when above the age of consent, because that consent is impaired by the position of authority a teacher has over her student, for example.

Radical feminism fought to protect child rapists, and here you are excusing the ones that did.

Quelle surprise.

You know it's not about 5 yo boys.
Show me a single case of a woman raping a 5 yo boy.
A single case, in USA, even from years ago.

[Galloism]

Prior to the liberal feminist attempts to make statutory rape gender neutral, having sex with a 12 year old girl was illegal, but having sex with a 12 year old boy wasn't. Liberal feminists spotted a problem - the law was unequal and treated women as less capable than men. They fought to change this.

Radical feminists fought against them - to protect the right of grown women to fuck little boys that couldn't consent.



Actually, it was. It was 5 year old boys, 6 year old boys, 7 year old boys, etc, all the way up until 13-15 year old boys (at that point in time, the only state with a higher age of consent than 16 was, I believe, California, which was and is 18). Going back to the 1800s, the age of consent varied by state from 12-14 or so, but due to feminist efforts, that was raised mostly into the 14-16 range (which, it should have been. 12? Seriously? 12? Looking at you, Vatican City). Except in California, I think, "17 year old boys" would not be considered victims of statutory rape, because they statutorily had reached the age of consent, the same as 17 year old girls.

Later on, provisions were added to recognize positions of authority (IE, parent and child, teacher and student, etc) as being statutory rape even when above the age of consent, because that consent is impaired by the position of authority a teacher has over her student, for example.

Radical feminism fought to protect child rapists, and here you are excusing the ones that did.

Quelle surprise.

You know it's not about 5 yo boys.
Show me a single case of a woman raping a 5 yo boy.
A single case, in USA, even from years ago.

Would be hard to find one from before the statutory rape law was changed - as a woman raping a five year old boy was not illegal.

However, here's one from a couple weeks ago, with a four year old:

http://fox17online.com/2016/08/26/michi ... r-old-son/

If radical feminists had their way, that wouldn't be illegal.